cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
-
Contact Email
-
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
-
Editorial Address
-
Location
Kota surakarta,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika
Published by Universitas Sebelas Maret
ISSN : -     EISSN : -     DOI : -
Core Subject : Education,
Mathematics
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 347 Documents
 17   18   19   20   21 
EKSPERIMENTASI PENDEKATAN PEMBELAJARAN PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA REALISTIK DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING PADA OPERASI BILANGAN BULAT DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA Nur Rohman
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 2 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe objectives of this research are to investigate: (1) which learning approach among realistic mathematics learning, problem-based learning, and conventional learning result in the students’ better learning achievement; (2) which learning style among visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles results in the students’ better achievement; (3)In each learning approach, which learning achievement is better among the students with the visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles, and (4)In each learning style, which learning achievement is better among the students with realistic mathematics learning, problem-based learning, and conventional learning.This research used the quasi-experimental research method. The population of the research was all of the students in Grade V of State Primary Schools in Dander sub-district, Bojonegoro regency in Academic Year 2012/2013. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified random sampling technique.The hypotheses of the research were tested by using the unbalanced two-way analysis of variance.The results of the research are as follows: 1) The realistic mathematics learning results in the same learning achievement as the problem-based learning does, but both the realistic mathematics learning and the problem-based learning result in a better learning achievement than the conventional one does. 2) The students with the auditory learning style have a better learning achievement than those either with the visual learning style or with the kinesthetic learning style, but the students with the visual learning style have the same learning achievement as those with the kinesthetic learning style. 3)In the realistic mathematics learning, the students with the visual learning style have a better learning achievement than those with the kinesthetic learning style, but the students with the auditory learning style have the same learning achievement as those with the kinesthetic style. In the problem-based learning, the student with the auditory learning style have a better learning achievement than those with the kinesthetic learning style, but the students with the visual learning style have the same learning achievement as those with the kinesthetic learning style. In the conventional learning, the learning achievements of the students with the auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles are similar. 4) In the group of students with the visual learning style, the students instructed with the three learning approaches have the same learning achievement. In the group of students with the auditory learning style, learning achievements of the students instructed with the realistic mathematics, the problem-based learning, and the conventional one are similar, but the students instructed with the problem-based learning have a better learning achievement than those instructed with the conventional one. In the kinesthetic learning style, the learning achievements of the students instructed with the auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles are similar
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL), GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA Hidayati, Dwi; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Sari Saputro, Dewi Retno
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 8 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract. The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on learning achievement viewed from student learning creativity. The learning models compared were problem based learning, group investigation and think pair share. This research used the quasi-experimental research method. The population of the research was all of the students in Grade VIII of Junior Secondary Schools of Banyumas Regency. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. The sample of research consisted of 295 students. Techniques of collecting data used were documentation, test, and questionnaire. Balance test used one way ANOVA test. From the research, it can be concluded as follows. (1) Learning model of PBL gave better mathematics learning achievement than model of GI and TPS, model of GI gave better mathematics learning achievement than model of TPS, (2) students who have high creativity gave better mathematics learning achievement than students who have medium and low creativity, students who have medium creativity gave better mathematics learning achievement than students who have low creativity, (3) in the students with high and low creativity, the GI learning model gave the same learning achievement in mathematics with the PBL and TPS learning model, the PBL learning model gave better learning achievement in mathematics the TPS learning model. The PBL, GI and TPS learning model gave the same learning achievement in mathematics, (4) in the PBL and GI learning model, the learning achievement in mathematics of the students with high creativity were better than the students with medium and low creativity, the students with medium and low creativity gave same the learning achievement in mathematics. In the TPS learning model, the students with high and medium creativity gave the same learning achievement in mathematics, the learning achievement in mathematics of the students with the high and medium creativity were better than the students the low creativity.Keywords: Problem Based Learning, Group Investigation, Think Pair Share, Student Learning Creativity
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT (TGT) BERBANTUAN SOFTWARE CABRI 3D DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA Fredi Ganda Putra; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Imam Sujadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 8 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of the learning models on learning achievement viewed from the learning style of the students. The learning models compared were the cooperative learning model of the TGT type by using Cabri 3D, the cooperative learning model of the TGT type, and the direct learning model. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. Its population was all of the students in grade VIII of State Junior Secondary Schools of Metro City in academic year 2013/2014. The size of the sample was 278 students consisted of 90 in experimental class 1, 95 in experimental class 2, and 93 in control class. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test on the learning material of polyhedron and questionnaire of learning style. The data was analyzed by using two way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions of the research were as follows. (1) The cooperative learning model of the TGT type by using Cabri 3D resulted in a better learning achievement than the cooperative learning model of the TGT type and the direct learning model, the cooperative learning model of the TGT type resulted in a better learning achievement than the direct learning model. (2) The students with the visual learning style had the same learning achievement as those with the kinesthetic learning style, and both of the group had a better learning achievement than those with the auditory learning style. (3) In each category of the learning style, the cooperative learning model of the TGT type by using Cabri 3D resulted in a better learning achievement than the cooperative learning model of the TGT type and the direct learning model, the cooperative learning model of the TGT type resulted in a better learning achievement than the direct learning model. (4) In each of the learning models, the students with the visual learning style had the same learning achievement as those with the kinesthetic learning style, and both of the group had a better learning achievement than those with the auditory learning style.Keywords: TGT , Cabri 3D, Learning Style.
PROSES BERPIKIR SISWA KELAS VII SEKOLAH MENENGAH PERTAMA DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA MATERI POKOK BANGUN DATAR BERDASARKAN PERSPEKTIF GENDER Sukowiyono Sukowiyono; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Imam Sujadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 4 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: This research aimed to find out the thinking process VII Graders of Junior High School in mathematics problem solving in plane geometry. This study was a descriptive qualitative research. The subject of research was the VII graders of SMP (Junior High School) Muhammadiyah 1 Surakarta consisting of four students. The subject was selected based on gender, mathematics ability and either spoken or written communication fluency. The data collection was conducted using think aloud technique. Data analysis was conducted based think aloud protocol. Then, time triangulation was conducted between the first and the second problems, and then method triangulation was done to obtain valid research subject data.This research finally provide the student’s thinking process as follows. The male students: 1) understand and analyze the problem by mentioning what they know and what asked, the thinking process used is the process of establishing cognition, 2) design and plan solution, used the thinking process of opinion establishment, 3) look for solution to problem solving, used thinking process of decision making and conclusion drawing, 4) examine the solution, could estimate mentally by writing nothing he did, the thinking process in this step was decision making thinking process. Female students: 1) understand the problem using thinking process of establishing cognition, to mention easily and correctly what they know in the problem and to mention what asked, 2) design and plan the solution using thinking process of opinion establishment and cognition establishment. could link the what known and what asked, 3) look for solution to problem using thinking process of decision making and conclusion drawing, 4) examine the solution, it is consistent with the students that can examine and investigate the prepared solution.Keywords: thinking process, mathematics problem solving, gender.
ANALISIS PROSES PEMBELAJARAN BERBASIS MASALAH (PROBLEM BASED LEARNING) MATEMATIKA DENGAN PENDEKATAN ILMIAH (SCIENTIFIC APPROACH ) DI SMA NEGERI 1 JOGOROGO KELAS X KABUPATEN NGAWI Rahmawati, Arum Dwi; Riyadi, Riyadi; Subanti, Sri
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of this research was to describe the planning, implementation process of learning undertaken by teachers of mathematics and constraints experienced during the process of mathematical problem-based learning with a scientific approach in class X SMAN 1 Jogorogo. This research was a qualitative study. These subject are taken using purposive sampling. The subjects of this study were the teacher math in class X. Data collection techniques in this study were documentation, interviews and observations. Techniques to validate that the data source triangulation and triangulation time. The data analysis technique used was the concept of Miles and Huberman consists of data reduction, data display, and conclusion. The results showed that the planning process of mathematical problem-based learning with a scientific approach was not maximal yet, seen in the preparation of lesson plans which teachers only see examples of other schools and only see a reference to the syllabus. Implementation of the learning process is done the math teacher in class X SMAN 1 Jogorogo was not maximal yet. Visible in the indicator 5M on core activities are observing, asking, gather information, and communicate their associates have not done all. In observing the activities of students had no difficulty, however, go into the next phase indicator and students are still difficulties in doing so. In the event of  problem making students ask questions, lack of motivation and imagination. Collect information on the activities of students also have difficulty in learning resources are used only for math books grade students associate X. At this stage also looks still difficulty in processing information, although sometimes the teacher has given direction that the students tried to process the information that has been obtained. At that last stage  quite well in communicating the results, good enough student responses revealed the results even though the teacher had to call one of the students without first. Overcoming the problems found in the process of mathematical problem-based learning with a scientific approach to teacher always gives motivation at any stage of learning and trying to develop a problem-based learning with a scientific approach.Keywords: PBL, Scientific Approach 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT (TGT) BERBANTU MEDIA AUDIO-VISUAL DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN KOMUNIKASI MATEMATIS PADA MATERI SEGIEMPAT Setiawan Wicaksono; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Imam Sujadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract. The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of the learning models on the learning achievement in Mathematics viewed from the mathematical communication of the students. The learning models compared were the cooperative learning model of the TGT type with audio-visual media, the cooperative learning model of the TGT type, and the direct learning model. This research  was the quasi experimental. Its population was all of the students in Grade VII of State Junior Secondary Schools of Pati regency in Academic Year 2013/2014. The taken samples used technique stratified cluster random samples consisted of 283 students, consisted 3 class, namely 97 students in Experimental Class I, 94 students in Experimental Class II, and 92 students in Control Class. The instruments to gather the data were test of achievement in Mathematics on the learning material of Quadrangle, and test of mathematical communication. The proposed hypotheses of the research were analyzed by using the two way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The results of the research were as follows: 1) The TGT type with audio-visual media results in a better learning achievement than the TGT type and the direct learning model, and the TGT provided a better learning achievement of direct learning model, 2) The students with the high mathematical communication was a better learning achievement than those with the moderate and low mathematical communication, while the students with moderate mathematical communication was the same learning achievement as those with the low mathematical communication, 3) a) In the students with the high mathematical communication, the TGT type with audio-visual media results in the same learning achievement as the cooperative learning model of the TGT type, the TGT type with audio-visual media or the TGT type results in a better learning achievement than  the  direct  learning  model,  3) b) the category of moderate and low mathematical communication, the TGT type with audio-visual media provided equal learning performance both with models the TGT type and direct learning model, 4) a) In the TGT type with audio-visual media, students who was a high mathematical communication was the same learning achievement as those with the moderate mathematical communication, the students with the moderate mathematical communication was the same learning achievement as those with the low mathematical communication, and students who with the high mathematical communication was a better learning achievement than those with the low mathematical communication, 4) b) In the TGT type, students with the high mathematical communication was a better learning achievement than those with the moderate or low mathematical communication, and students with the moderate mathematical communication was the same learning achievement as those with the low mathematical communication, 4) c) In the direct learning model, students with the high mathematical communication was the same learning achievement as those with the moderate or low mathematical communication.Keywords: TGT, audio-visual media, and mathematical communication
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF GROUP INVESTIGATION(GI) DAN THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI DIMENSI TIGA DENGAN PENDEKATAN PMRI DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA Y Noenoek Andrijanti; Budiyono Budiyono; Dewi Retno Sari
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract:The purpose of this research are to know: 1) which one gives better achievement in mathematics, learning model of GI with IRME approach, learning model of TPS with IRME approach, or conventional learning model, 2) which one gives better achievement in mathematics, student who was high creativity, middle creativity, or low creativity, 3) for each category of student’s creativity (high, middle, and low), which one produces better achievement in mathematics, learning model of GI with IRME approach, learning model of TPS with IRME approach or conventional learning model. This research is quasi-experimental research with the research plan using factorial 3´3. The population of this research was all students in class X in SMA/MA Surakarta academic year 2012/2013. The sample-taking was done using stratified cluster random sampling.  The instrument which was applied to obtain the data of the research was test, questionnaires, and documentation. The test instrument was used to know the mathematics achievement on three- dimensional material. Hence, questionnaires instrument was used to know the student’s creativity. The questionnaires instrument includes content validity, internal consistency and reliability. The test instrument includes content validity, level of difficulty, different power and reliability. The  results of  the  research  are (1) GI type of cooperative learning model with IRME approach provides better learning achievement than the TPS type with IRME approach, conventional learning in mathematic learning in three dimension material. The TPS type of cooperative learning provides the learning achievement as good as the conventional learning did in three dimension material of mathematic learning, (2) the students with high creativity level have mathematic learning achievement as good as those with medium creativity level, the students with medium creativity level have mathematic learning achievement as good as those with low creativity level, and the students with high creativity level have mathematic learning achievement better than those with low creativity level, (3) at each creativity level, the GI type of cooperative learning model application with IRME provided learning achievement better than both TPS type with IRME and conventional learning did. The TPS type of learning model with IRME approach provided learning achievement as good as the conventional learning did in three dimension material of mathematic learning. Keywords:GIlearning model, TPS, IRME, creativity.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THREE STEPS INTERVIEW (TSI) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO Maharani, Rizqona; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Usodo, Budi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 2 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of this study was  to determine the effect of the learning models on the learning achievement in mathematics viewed from the students’ multiple intelligences. The learning models compared were the cooperative learning of the three steps interview (TSI) type with scientific approach, think pair share (TPS) model type with scientific approach, and classical learning with  scientific approach. The type of this study was quasi experimental study with a 3x3 factorial design. The population was all grade 8 students of Secondary Schools in Sukoharjo Regency. Instruments used for data collection were mathematics achievement test and multiple intelligences questionnaire. The data analysis technique used was the two-way ANOVA with unequal cell. Based on the hipothesis, the results of the study could be concluded as follows. (1) TSI with scientific approach got better learning achievement than TPS with scientific approach and classical with scientific approach. In addition, TPS with scientific approach got better learning achievement than classical with scientific approach. (2) Students with logical mathematical intelligence got better achievement than students with linguistic intelligence and students with interpersonal intelligence, students with linguistic intelligence got better achievement than students with interpersonal intelligence. (3) Viewed from learning models, students with logical mathematical intelligence got better achievement than students with linguistic intelligence and students with interpersonal intelligence. However, students with linguistic intelligence got better achievement than students with interpersonal intelligence. (4) Viewed multiple intelligences’ categories, TSI model with scientific approach got better achievement than TPS with scientific approach and classical with scientific approach. However, TPS with scientific approach got better achievement than classical with scientific approach.Keywords: Three Steps Interview (TSI), Think Pair Share (TPS), Classical Learning, Scientific Approach, and Multiple Intelligences.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL) DAN MODEL GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) DALAM PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI SIKAP PERCAYA DIRI SISWA KELAS VIII SMP SE-KABUPATEN MADIUN TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Ubayu Wahyuning Awi Gangga; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Budi Usodo
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 1 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: This research was arranged to determine: (1) which one gave better achievement between PBL, GI or direct learning; (2) which one have better achievement between high, medium or low self confidence students; (3) for each self confidence categories, which one gave better achievement between PBL, GI or direct learning; (4) for each learning model, which one have better achievement between high, medium or low self confidence students. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. The population was the students of junior high school in Madiun regency on academic year 2013/2014. The size of the sample was 235 students consisted of 77 students in the first experimental group, 79 students in the second experimental group and 79 students in the control group. The instruments used were documentation, questionnaire, and mathematics achievement test. The data was analyzed using unbalanced two way analysis of variance. The conclusions of the research were as follows. (1) The model of GI learning gave better achievement in studying mathematics than PBL and direct learning, PBL gave better achievement in studying mathematics than direct learning; (2) The students who have high self confidence have a better achievement than the students who have medium and low self confidence, but the students who have medium self confidence have the same achievement as the students who have low self confidence; (3) On the students with high self confidence, the PBL and GI gave the same achievement, but PBL and GI gave better achievement than direct learning, while on the students with medium and low self confidence, the PBL, GI and direct learning gave the same achievement; (4) On the PBL, high self confidence students have better achievement than low self confidence students, but have the same achievement as medium self confidence students, and medium self confidence students have the same achievement as low self confidence students. While on GI and direct learning, the three categories of self confidence students have the same achievement.Keywords: Problem Based Learning (PBL), Group Investigation (GI), Direct Learning, Self Confidence.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TGT BERBASIS ASSESMENT FOR LEARNING (AfL) DITINJAU DARI GAYA KOGNITIF SISWA Ilham Rais A; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Budi Usodo
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 7 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The aims of this research were to investigate: (1) which learning model of the cooperative learning model of the AfL-based TGT type, that of TGT, and the conventional learning model results in a better learning achievement; (2) which cognitive style type of the field dependent and the field independent results in a better learning achievement; (3) in each learning model (the cooperative learning model of the AfL-based TGT type, that of TGT, and the conventional learning model) which cognitive style results in a better learning achievement; and (4) in each cognitive style type (the field independent  and the field dependent), which learning model results in a better learning achievement. This research used the quasi experimental research method. The samples of the research consisted of 302 students. The instruments consisted of the test of learning achievement and cognitive style. The data was analyzed using the unbalanced two- way analysis of variance. The results of the research were as follows: (1) the cooperative learning model of the AfL-based TGT type results in a better learning achievement than that of the TGT type or the conventional learning model, and the cooperative learning model of the TGT type results in a better learning achievement than the conventional learning model; (2) the students with the cognitive style of the field independent has a better learning achievement than those with the cognitive style of the field dependent; (3) in that each learning model, the students with the cognitive style of the field independent have a better learning achievement than those with the cognitive style of the field dependent; and (4) in that each cognitive style, the cooperative learning model of the AfL-based TGT results in a better learning achievement than that of the TGT type or the conventional learning model, and the conventional learning of the TGT type results in a better learning achievement than the conventional learning model. Key words: TGT, AfL, Cognitive Style, and Learning Achievement.

Page 19 of 35 | Total Record : 347

 17   18   19   20   21 

Filter by Year

2013 2018


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 5, No 3 (2018): Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 5, No 2 (2018): Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 5, No 1 (2018): Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 5 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 5 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 2 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 2 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 1 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 1 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 8 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 8 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 4 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 4 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 3 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 3 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 2 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 2 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 1 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 1 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 10 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 10 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 8 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 8 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 7 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 6 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 6 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 5 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 5 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 3 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 3 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 7 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 7 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 6 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 6 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 4 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 4 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 3 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 2 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 2 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 1 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika More Issue